Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass'n v. Brookings Cnty. Planning & Zoning Comm'n

• Decision Date: 28 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 27598.,27598.
• Citation: 882 N.W.2d 307
• Parties: LAKE HENDRICKS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION; City of Hendricks, Minnesota; and Norris Patrick, Petitioners and Appellants, v. BROOKINGS COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; Brookings County Planning and Zoning Commission Sitting as the Brookings County Board of Adjustment; Michael Crinion; Killeskillen, LLC, Respondents and Appellees, and LC Olson, LLP, Respondent.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

882 N.W.2d 307

LAKE HENDRICKS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION; City of Hendricks, Minnesota; and Norris Patrick, Petitioners and Appellants,

v.BROOKINGS COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION; Brookings County Planning and Zoning Commission Sitting as the Brookings County Board of Adjustment; Michael Crinion; Killeskillen, LLC, Respondents and Appellees,andLC Olson, LLP, Respondent.

No. 27598.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Argued May 24, 2016.

Decided June 28, 2016.

Mitchell A. Peterson, Reece Almond of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for petitioners and appellants.

Jack H. Hieb, Zachary W. Peterson of Richardson, Wyly, Wise, Sauck & Hieb, LLP, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Attorneys for respondents and appelleesBrookings County.

Brian Donahoe, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for respondents and appelleesMichael Crinion and Killeskillen, LLC.

WILBUR, Justice.

[¶ 1.]Petitioners sought to reverse a county board of adjustment's 2014 decision to grant Developer a conditional use permit for a concentrated animal feeding operation.Petitioners alleged that the board did not have jurisdiction to grant the permit because the county failed to validly enact an ordinance authorizing the board to issue permits.The circuit court refused to consider whether the county validly enacted the ordinance.In the court's view, such review would be outside the scope of Petitioners' writ challenging the board's decision.Petitioners further asserted that the board failed to regularly pursue its authority when it granted the permit.The court upheld the board's decision to grant the permit.Petitioners now appeal alleging the same.Developer filed a notice of review, asserting that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider Petitioners' writ because Petitioners do not have standing under SDCL 11–2–61.We dismissed Developer's notice of review in Lake Hendricks Improvement Association v. Brookings County Planning & Zoning Commission because Developers failed to serve notice on all parties.2016 S.D. 17, 877 N.W.2d 99.We reserved ruling on whether Developer may argue its issue as jurisdictional despite the dismissal of its notice of review.We reverse and remand.

Background

[¶ 2.]On September 8, 2014, Michael Crinion and his company, Killeskillen, LLC(Killeskillen), submitted an application for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a new concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in Brookings County, South Dakota.The proposed CAFO would be located in the NE 1/4 of Section 10–11–48 of Brookings County and house up to 3,999 mature dairy cows.The Brookings County Planning & Zoning Commission, sitting as the Brookings County Board of Adjustment(Board), held a hearing on Killeskillen's application on October 7, 2014.Prior to the hearing, the zoning office had received written materials from the public concerning Killeskillen's proposed CAFO.During the hearing, proponents and opponents offered testimony concerning the CAFO.At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board voted to approve Killeskillen's application with conditions.

It entered findings of fact and special conditions.

[¶ 3.]Lake Hendricks Improvement Association, City of Hendricks, Minnesota, and Norris Patrick(Petitioners) petitioned the circuit court under SDCL 11–2–61 for a writ of certiorari and challenged the Board's decision to grant Killeskillen a CUP.Petitioners asserted that the Board acted without jurisdiction when it granted the CUP because Brookings County failed to validly enact its ordinances in 2007(Ordinances) governing CUPs.Petitioners alternatively argued that the Board failed to regularly pursue its authority when it granted the CUP.Petitioners asserted that the evidence is undisputed that: (1) the Board's decision violated the Ordinances because the Board allowed the CAFO within 2,640 feet of a private well; (2) the Board failed to require Killeskillen to enter into a road use agreement with Oak Lake Township before granting the CUP; and (3) the Board allowed a CAFO in a Zone B aquifer protection site.

[¶ 4.]In response, Killeskillen moved to dismiss the petition, alleging that Petitioners lacked standing under SDCL 11–2–61 to challenge the Board's decision.Alternatively, Brookings County and Killeskillen asserted that the circuit court could not review the validity of the ordinances enacted by the County in 2007 because, in their view, such review is beyond the scope of Petitioners' writ.Lastly, the County and Killeskillen argued that the CUP complies with the Ordinances, and, therefore, the Board regularly pursued its authority when it granted Killeskillen a CUP for a CAFO.

[¶ 5.]The circuit court held a hearing and orally denied Killeskillen's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.It also refused to consider the validity of the 2007 Ordinances because it concluded that such review was beyond the scope of Petitioners' writ.The court held that the Board possessed jurisdiction to grant the CUP because, at the time Killeskillen applied for a CUP and during the hearing, the Ordinances were unchallenged.The court said that “[a]ny attack on the Ordinance remains a question to be addressed in another cause of action.”

[¶ 6.]On the merits, the circuit court found that the Board considered whether there were any wells within the setback requirement via a search of the state registry of well heads and from the fact no evidence of the presence of wells was presented at the October 7, 2014 hearing.The court refused to consider Petitioners' evidence of the presence of a well within the setback because that evidence was not before the Board when it decided the issue.The court found that the site description of the CAFO does not include a Zone B aquifer protection area.The court also found the Board determined that appropriate protections were in place for those to be affected by traffic, road use, and other factors.In light of these findings by the Board, the circuit court concluded that the Board followed the Ordinances and the standards set in the Ordinances when it granted Killeskillen a CUP.The court recognized that, under its review of Petitioners' request for relief under SDCL 11–2–61, the court does not review whether the Board's underlying decision was correct in the absence of proof that the Board acted fraudulently or in arbitrary or willful disregard of undisputed and indisputable proof.The court affirmed the Board's decision to grant Killeskillen a CUP and denied Petitioners' request for relief.

[¶ 7.]Petitioners appeal, asserting:

1.The circuit court erred when it refused to consider the validity of the Ordinances.

2.The Board exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to regularly pursue its authority when it granted Killeskillen's application for a CUP.

[¶ 8.]Killeskillen asserts:

1.The circuit court had no subject matter jurisdiction under SDCL 11–2–61 to consider Petitioners' writ.

2.Petitioners lack standing under SDCL 11–2–61 to challenge the Board's decision.

Analysis

[¶ 9.]We first address Killeskillen's claims.As background, Killeskillen had originally filed a notice of review/cross-appeal to challenge Petitioners' standing under SDCL 11–2–61 and the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction to consider Petitioners' writ.Petitioners moved this Court to dismiss Killeskillen's notice of review because Killeskillen failed to serve notice of its cross-appeal/notice of review on all parties.Killeskillen did not dispute that it failed to serve notice of its cross-appeal/notice of review on LC Olson, LLP.LC Olson, LLP owns the land Killeskillen intends to purchase in order to construct the CAFO if granted a CUP.In response to Petitioners' motion to dismiss, Killeskillen asserted that: (1)LC Olson, LLP is not a party required to be served with notice; (2)SDCL 15–6–5(a) excused service of the notice of review on LC Olson, LLP; (3) Killeskillen's interest aligns with LC Olson, LLP's interest such that it excused service on LC Olson, LLP; and (4)this Court has jurisdiction to consider Killeskillen's issue despite its failure to serve notice on all parties because standing is jurisdictional.

[¶ 10.]In Lake Hendricks,we dismissed Killeskillen's notice of review/cross-appeal for Killeskillen's failure to serve notice on LC Olson, LLP.2016 S.D. 17, ¶ 11, 877 N.W.2d 99, 104.We, however, reserved “ruling on the issue whether [Killeskillen] may argue standing as a jurisdictional issue regardless of the status of [Killeskillen's] notice of review pending further briefing” in this appeal.Id.¶ 11.We invited the parties who had filed briefs in the current appeal during the pendency of the Court's examination of the motion to dismiss Killeskillen's notice of review to “request permission to file supplemental briefs on this issue ... if they are deemed necessary.”Id.¶ 11 n. 9.The parties submitted a joint letter indicating that no party to the appeal would be requesting permission to file supplemental briefing.We now examine whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider Killeskillen's claims despite the dismissal of Killeskillen's notice of review.

1.Subject Matter Jurisdiction

[¶ 11.]According to Killeskillen, the issue of the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction under SDCL 11–2–61 is jurisdictional—a matter for “determination sua sponte by the Court if not raised by the appealing parties.”Killeskillen avers that the circuit court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioners' writ because Petitioners are not persons or entities entitled to appeal under SDCL 11–2–61.

[¶ 12.]Though it is well settled that the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, Killeskillen's issue attacks Petitioners' standing under SDCL 11–2–61, not the circuit court's power to consider petitions for relief under SDCL chapter 11–2.As we recognized in City of Rapid City v. Estes,“[i]t is possible for a court to...